Re:Some Thoughts on GNOME/KDE
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 3
I've spent the last couple of hours stewing in a cauldron of raw emotions. This last post just hit my "mad" button again. But I'll ignore it.
Instead, I'm thinking about why I'm being sucked into a holy war. There is nothing in GNOME that I abhor, and nothing in KDE that I would die for. So why am I getting worked up?
I like KDE. I use it daily and do real work with it. Then I see a lie about it and I get angry. It's the same thing that happens when Microsoft tells a lie about Linux. We all get mad about that. But what's different about the KDE/GNOME war, is that it's my allies that are passing out the FUD.
Linux has given me my computing freedom back. Then someone comes along and tells me that I'm not truly free as long as I use KDE. "Turn from the dark side."
I'm currently writing a free application using the Qt library. I see a message fly by during a KDE/GNOME skirmish that says what I am doing is illegal. I re-read the GPL and QPL. I can't find anything, so I reply to the author asking for details. He's of the religious belief that anything that's not GPL is unholy. And he replies using Netscape!
I want to use KDE without anyone telling me that I'm evil for doing so. I get upset when people tell me that I am not free. I get angry when they tell me I am wicked. I didn't know this was a religion. I thought we had choice with Linux. Perhaps I should migrate to BSD.
It's interesting to follow the linux-newbie mailing list. A newbie writes in asking what GNOME is, and does it work with KDE? A week later another newbie writes in asking what KDE is, and does it work with GNOME? Newbies who've tried both write in to say thanks for giving them a real choice. For the first time of their computing lives, they're free.
It's simply amazing! Over sixty developers from around the world have worked their butts off trying to bring you the best desktop they can, with no prospect of monetary compensation, and all you can do is complain. Don't dump on KDE because your disagree with 1/10 of one percent of it! Linux doesn't listen to whiners. It listens to doers.
Most of these complaints are trivial. Get a life people! Learn to use your computer. So what if you don't like the "K" logo. Use another. It's just an icon. You don't have to be a programmer to make an icon. Don't like the fact that clicking on an icon opens up that icon? Don't click on the icon!
A week ago, people were compaining that KDE didn't have true themes. Now they're compaining that they're not exactly like gtk themes. They previously kvetched about lack of CORBA. Now they're concerned about embedding. Last week they ploudly proclaimed that KDE had no future. Now they're worried that it does.
And learn to think for yourselves! GNOME is not necessarily the holy grail for humanity. Not everything that isn't GNU or GNOME is evil. Freedom is about choice. This bears repeating: freedom is about choice. This means that it's okay for there to be other desktops besides GNOME. Dynamically linking to a non-GPL library does not make KDE non-GPL. Those who are complaining that KDE looks and acts just like Windows have obviously never used KDE or Windows. Those that think that GNOME is better because it doesn't have those things that makes KDE windows-like have obviously never used GNOME.
For those of you aren't whiners, my apologies. I just had to get my whine out about whiners.
I've read the GPL. I've read the QPL (old and new). For the life of me I can't find the clause that says free (read holy) software cannot dynamically link to proprietary (read unholy) libraries. Will someone stop threatening for a minute and show me chapter and verse in the GPL where it says I can't use proprietary dynamic libaries?
Are you saying all of those Windows and Mac versions of the standard GNU programs are all illegal? What is the difference between linking to the win32 API and linking to Qt?
I can reuse any GNU code I feel like so long as I don't make it unfree. It's in the GPL. Don't believe me? Read it yourself.
Forget all the hype about GNOME being window manager neutral. It requires Enlightenment to operate fully. Enlightenment is officially part of GNOME now. Despite the fact that WindowMaker is gnome-compliant, GNOME still pops up with messages suggesting you run Enlightenment instead.
KDE makes no such statements about window manager neutrality, and is quite open about the required use of KWM. In spite of this, I found that KDE works with WindowMaker much better than GNOME does.
Troll tech already did a QtMozilla. They didn't do it as a production project, just as a proof of concept, so you'll need to do some work to polish it up. You can find it as www.troll.no
Corel chose KDE because it can be *made* to look like windows. As a matter of fact, so can GNOME.
This is all pointless bickering by bigoted purists. Aren't there better things to argue over than which desktop is most dissimilar to Windows? Ask youself if this is the hill you want to die defending.
The Amiga and OS/2 died of starvation because their bigots drove everyone else away. Don't do the same to Linux.
The vertical market has always paid the developer top dollar. But what about embedded systems? Seems to me that this is the future for high-dollar development. Just about everything is going to be computerized and it won't matter if the proms have free software in them.
Last year I found that I wasn't watching my TV anymore except for an occasional rented tape. I sold it to a coworker, and after the initial two-week withdrawls, I haven't missed it at all!
I love it when the TCI sales guy comes to the door. When I explain I don't have a TV, he's baffled and wants to know how I survive.
What I think Jeremy is saying is that you we've redefined "user-friendly" to "idiot-friendly." If a system forces a newbie to always remain a newbie, it's "idiot friendly."
Everyone has a different definition of "user friendly." Talk to a tech reporter and he'll define it as being idiot proof. I would define it as being intuitive and having a consistant user interfaces. It has nothing to do with "pretty pictures" and "cute widgets."
Not everyone in the world can be an expert. To expect them to is wrong. To expect to achieve world domination for experts only is stupid. I definitely see newbie distros as well as guru distros in the future. Just look at the audio market: you can buy "user-friendly" stereos with just volume and tuning knobs, or you can buy the audophile systems that let you control everything. Most people are in the middle.
A friendly distribution that doesn't skimp on the power will allow a newbie to become an expert. But if the newbie is rudely dumped to the command line with no clue as what to do next, he'll dump Linux.
Linux has the chance the be the OS for everyone, newbie and expert alike.
Why do web designers want homogenous users? If you don't throw in the latest, greatest features of CSS, and don't use any browser specific tags, most browsers will see your page just fine. Is the content on a version NS3 page going to be different than that on a version NS4 page?
It would be great if all of the browsers had perfect 100% compliance with the current standards, kept up to date with the standards, and made sure all the users had the up to date browsers. But that's not going to happen!
I think that many of those sites that serve up different versions to different browswers are trying to treat HTML as a DTP or paintbrush.
Since you're asking about viable alternatives, I can assume that you consider Qt non-viable, as opposed to merely politically incorrect. Why is Qt non-viable? I've always felt that Qt was quite viable for Linux, with free source for non-commercial use, with even more openness when v2.0 comes out. Am I grossly mistaken? Can you please explain why?
I'd hate to be slumming around in slashdot with a non-viable browser!
Why is everyone saying that Linux has to offer MSOffice in order to be competitive against Microsoft? Are these reporters so dense that they can't see the irony in what they write?
The writing is on the wall, proprietary formats won't survive the millenium.
I'll email a location for my report to 15 different people, and only the HW and SW guys ever find it. So I email the whole thing to the drones, and they use MSWord to comment on my FMaker doc. Go figure.
Is the chip that worthless that the only way they can get people to invest in it is to appropriate tax-payer funding through the Russian government? I don't think that computer chips are a public-works type of commodity that needs such a funding mechanism. Perhaps I'm just an old fashioned individualist with an irrational distrust of governments.
This has got to be the most boneheaded report on free software I have ever seen. This goes way beyond FUD.
Last I heard, Mr. Nader was not a leader in the free software or OSS movement. He isn't pro-OSS, he's anti-MS. Big difference. The premise of this article is that if Nader approves it, it must be wrong. Gee! If Nader approves of drinking orange juice for breakfast, would he write a report on how the citrus industry is socialist?
Free software is the PROOF of free market economics. OSS isn't the equivalent of a bunch of hippies living in a collective commune. It's making software economics behave like every other product economics.
From the surface, this site looks like a pro-business conservative think tank, but I think it's really a shill for the neo-fascists and populists.
If you do away with copyrights, you do away with the GPL. Everything would be public domain. Free software as we know would cease to exist. Nothing would prevent Microsoft from taking Linux code, incorporating it into Windows, and then still keep the source code secret. Hell, they could release a MS/Linux and keep the source code secret. Without copyrights, companies would be forced to rely on secrecy even more than they do now.
Some classes of intellectual property are more suitable for the GPL than others. Commodity style software is one example (operating systems and development libraries) that works well with GPL and BSD. Other styles aren't, such as vertical applications and games that you only play once. By eliminating copyright, you force all software to be treated the same.
I'm not sure what they're teaching in colleges these days, so I may be off base...
You get a CS or CE degree for more than just learning a programming language. First of all, you learn *how* to program in a way that "Sams in 21 Days" just can't teach you. You learn core skills such as designing hashes. And very importantly, you're forced to study topics that you otherwise would not. You also attain (depending on the college) a real education.
If you're skipping college to startup your own business, go for it. This will give you more education than any college ever could. But if you're skipping just so that you can start work as a developer, think again. Take that job, but take it part time while you're attending classes.
If you're referring to Steve Kubby, he's not a drug dealer. He was growing marijuana for personal medical benefit in full compliance with California state law.
If it's truly open-source then Al wouldn't mind at all if George Bush, Pat Buchanan, and Steve Forbes liberally [sic] borrowed from it, would he? It would just fine and dandy if Elizabeth Dole stole the winning screen saver and modified it.
And I can't wait to see what Jesse Ventura and Harry Browne come up with...
Slashdot Mirror
I've spent the last couple of hours stewing in a cauldron of raw emotions. This last post just hit my "mad" button again. But I'll ignore it.
Instead, I'm thinking about why I'm being sucked into a holy war. There is nothing in GNOME that I abhor, and nothing in KDE that I would die for. So why am I getting worked up?
I like KDE. I use it daily and do real work with it. Then I see a lie about it and I get angry. It's the same thing that happens when Microsoft tells a lie about Linux. We all get mad about that. But what's different about the KDE/GNOME war, is that it's my allies that are passing out the FUD.
Linux has given me my computing freedom back. Then someone comes along and tells me that I'm not truly free as long as I use KDE. "Turn from the dark side."
I'm currently writing a free application using the Qt library. I see a message fly by during a KDE/GNOME skirmish that says what I am doing is illegal. I re-read the GPL and QPL. I can't find anything, so I reply to the author asking for details. He's of the religious belief that anything that's not GPL is unholy. And he replies using Netscape!
I want to use KDE without anyone telling me that I'm evil for doing so. I get upset when people tell me that I am not free. I get angry when they tell me I am wicked. I didn't know this was a religion. I thought we had choice with Linux. Perhaps I should migrate to BSD.
It's interesting to follow the linux-newbie mailing list. A newbie writes in asking what GNOME is, and does it work with KDE? A week later another newbie writes in asking what KDE is, and does it work with GNOME? Newbies who've tried both write in to say thanks for giving them a real choice. For the first time of their computing lives, they're free.
We can learn from the innocents.
It's simply amazing! Over sixty developers from around the world have worked their butts off trying to bring you the best desktop they can, with no prospect of monetary compensation, and all you can do is complain. Don't dump on KDE because your disagree with 1/10 of one percent of it! Linux doesn't listen to whiners. It listens to doers.
Most of these complaints are trivial. Get a life people! Learn to use your computer. So what if you don't like the "K" logo. Use another. It's just an icon. You don't have to be a programmer to make an icon. Don't like the fact that clicking on an icon opens up that icon? Don't click on the icon!
A week ago, people were compaining that KDE didn't have true themes. Now they're compaining that they're not exactly like gtk themes. They previously kvetched about lack of CORBA. Now they're concerned about embedding. Last week they ploudly proclaimed that KDE had no future. Now they're worried that it does.
And learn to think for yourselves! GNOME is not necessarily the holy grail for humanity. Not everything that isn't GNU or GNOME is evil. Freedom is about choice. This bears repeating: freedom is about choice. This means that it's okay for there to be other desktops besides GNOME. Dynamically linking to a non-GPL library does not make KDE non-GPL. Those who are complaining that KDE looks and acts just like Windows have obviously never used KDE or Windows. Those that think that GNOME is better because it doesn't have those things that makes KDE windows-like have obviously never used GNOME.
For those of you aren't whiners, my apologies. I just had to get my whine out about whiners.
I've read the GPL. I've read the QPL (old and new). For the life of me I can't find the clause that says free (read holy) software cannot dynamically link to proprietary (read unholy) libraries. Will someone stop threatening for a minute and show me chapter and verse in the GPL where it says I can't use proprietary dynamic libaries?
Are you saying all of those Windows and Mac versions of the standard GNU programs are all illegal? What is the difference between linking to the win32 API and linking to Qt?
I can reuse any GNU code I feel like so long as I don't make it unfree. It's in the GPL. Don't believe me? Read it yourself.
Forget all the hype about GNOME being window manager neutral. It requires Enlightenment to operate fully. Enlightenment is officially part of GNOME now. Despite the fact that WindowMaker is gnome-compliant, GNOME still pops up with messages suggesting you run Enlightenment instead.
KDE makes no such statements about window manager neutrality, and is quite open about the required use of KWM. In spite of this, I found that KDE works with WindowMaker much better than GNOME does.
Troll tech already did a QtMozilla. They didn't do it as a production project, just as a proof of concept, so you'll need to do some work to polish it up. You can find it as www.troll.no
This would be just as bad as being forced to use GNOME!
You are not forced to use anything in ANY Linux distribution. This is not an issue. Get over it.
Corel chose KDE because it can be *made* to look like windows. As a matter of fact, so can GNOME.
This is all pointless bickering by bigoted purists. Aren't there better things to argue over than which desktop is most dissimilar to Windows? Ask youself if this is the hill you want to die defending.
The Amiga and OS/2 died of starvation because their bigots drove everyone else away. Don't do the same to Linux.
The vertical market has always paid the developer top dollar. But what about embedded systems? Seems to me that this is the future for high-dollar development. Just about everything is going to be computerized and it won't matter if the proms have free software in them.
Last year I found that I wasn't watching my TV anymore except for an occasional rented tape. I sold it to a coworker, and after the initial two-week withdrawls, I haven't missed it at all!
I love it when the TCI sales guy comes to the door. When I explain I don't have a TV, he's baffled and wants to know how I survive.
What I think Jeremy is saying is that you we've redefined "user-friendly" to "idiot-friendly." If a system forces a newbie to always remain a newbie, it's "idiot friendly."
Everyone has a different definition of "user friendly." Talk to a tech reporter and he'll define it as being idiot proof. I would define it as being intuitive and having a consistant user interfaces. It has nothing to do with "pretty pictures" and "cute widgets."
Not everyone in the world can be an expert. To expect them to is wrong. To expect to achieve world domination for experts only is stupid. I definitely see newbie distros as well as guru distros in the future. Just look at the audio market: you can buy "user-friendly" stereos with just volume and tuning knobs, or you can buy the audophile systems that let you control everything. Most people are in the middle.
A friendly distribution that doesn't skimp on the power will allow a newbie to become an expert. But if the newbie is rudely dumped to the command line with no clue as what to do next, he'll dump Linux.
Linux has the chance the be the OS for everyone, newbie and expert alike.
Free software will have won when the newbies no longer choose between Windows and Mac, but choose between Linux and FreeBSD.
Why do web designers want homogenous users? If you don't throw in the latest, greatest features of CSS, and don't use any browser specific tags, most browsers will see your page just fine. Is the content on a version NS3 page going to be different than that on a version NS4 page?
It would be great if all of the browsers had perfect 100% compliance with the current standards, kept up to date with the standards, and made sure all the users had the up to date browsers. But that's not going to happen!
I think that many of those sites that serve up different versions to different browswers are trying to treat HTML as a DTP or paintbrush.
Since you're asking about viable alternatives, I can assume that you consider Qt non-viable, as opposed to merely politically incorrect. Why is Qt non-viable? I've always felt that Qt was quite viable for Linux, with free source for non-commercial use, with even more openness when v2.0 comes out. Am I grossly mistaken? Can you please explain why?
I'd hate to be slumming around in slashdot with a non-viable browser!
A simple check of the source tree will confirm this. If the Mozilla folks verify it, neo's going to be in a world of humiliation.
Why is everyone saying that Linux has to offer MSOffice in order to be competitive against Microsoft? Are these reporters so dense that they can't see the irony in what they write?
The writing is on the wall, proprietary formats won't survive the millenium.
I'll email a location for my report to 15 different people, and only the HW and SW guys ever find it. So I email the whole thing to the drones, and they use MSWord to comment on my FMaker doc. Go figure.
His descriptions don't sound like hackers to me. Average age of 12 to 28? Cyberpunks? Methinks he refers to another culture.
And speaking of anti-social, how come there wasn't a forum to talk back at?
Is the chip that worthless that the only way they can get people to invest in it is to appropriate tax-payer funding through the Russian government? I don't think that computer chips are a public-works type of commodity that needs such a funding mechanism. Perhaps I'm just an old fashioned individualist with an irrational distrust of governments.
If they're changing their name, then how come they've got painters putting up their new "sgi" logo right now?
This has got to be the most boneheaded report on free software I have ever seen. This goes way beyond FUD.
Last I heard, Mr. Nader was not a leader in the free software or OSS movement. He isn't pro-OSS, he's anti-MS. Big difference. The premise of this article is that if Nader approves it, it must be wrong. Gee! If Nader approves of drinking orange juice for breakfast, would he write a report on how the citrus industry is socialist?
Free software is the PROOF of free market economics. OSS isn't the equivalent of a bunch of hippies living in a collective commune. It's making software economics behave like every other product economics.
From the surface, this site looks like a pro-business conservative think tank, but I think it's really a shill for the neo-fascists and populists.
If you do away with copyrights, you do away with the GPL. Everything would be public domain. Free software as we know would cease to exist. Nothing would prevent Microsoft from taking Linux code, incorporating it into Windows, and then still keep the source code secret. Hell, they could release a MS/Linux and keep the source code secret. Without copyrights, companies would be forced to rely on secrecy even more than they do now.
Some classes of intellectual property are more suitable for the GPL than others. Commodity style software is one example (operating systems and development libraries) that works well with GPL and BSD. Other styles aren't, such as vertical applications and games that you only play once. By eliminating copyright, you force all software to be treated the same.
I'm not sure what they're teaching in colleges these days, so I may be off base...
You get a CS or CE degree for more than just learning a programming language. First of all, you learn *how* to program in a way that "Sams in 21 Days" just can't teach you. You learn core skills such as designing hashes. And very importantly, you're forced to study topics that you otherwise would not. You also attain (depending on the college) a real education.
If you're skipping college to startup your own business, go for it. This will give you more education than any college ever could. But if you're skipping just so that you can start work as a developer, think again. Take that job, but take it part time while you're attending classes.
If you're referring to Steve Kubby, he's not a drug dealer. He was growing marijuana for personal medical benefit in full compliance with California state law.
Isn't the opposition to the fundamentalist theocrats and authortarian reactionaries dominated by religiphobic socialists and radical statists?
If it's truly open-source then Al wouldn't mind at all if George Bush, Pat Buchanan, and Steve Forbes liberally [sic] borrowed from it, would he? It would just fine and dandy if Elizabeth Dole stole the winning screen saver and modified it.
And I can't wait to see what Jesse Ventura and Harry Browne come up with...